babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Rebick reacts

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Rebick reacts
janew
webmistress
Babbler # 199

posted 08 September 2003 10:29 AM      Profile for janew     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's a letter to the editor in this morning's Globe and Mail, from our illustrious publisher.

scan of Judy's letter


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
janew
webmistress
Babbler # 199

posted 08 September 2003 10:37 AM      Profile for janew     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
And here's the article that Judy is responding to.

and a follow-up piece today.


From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sara Mayo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3714

posted 08 September 2003 11:15 AM      Profile for Sara Mayo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
To make your life easier Jane, the Globe has their letters on their website. (In the Comment section). click
From: "Highways are monuments to inequality" - Enrique Penalosa | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 08 September 2003 11:16 AM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The film simply shows a true portrait of the Bernard Landry who wanted to lead a new country, a man who sees enemies of the State everywhere.

It is the Bernard Landry that people involved in Quebec politics have known about for years. Now the public gets invited behind the scenes.

As for Rebick's comments: the media isn't savage enough with politicians. And if the media does truly treat Landry the way the former premier accuses them of, ask yourselves why. Perhaps because the irascible, tyrannical, and vindictive Bernard Landry the public is getting to see for the first time is the one the media have been dealing with daily for 30 years.

He got what he deserves.

[ 08 September 2003: Message edited by: Mimichekele2 ]


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 08 September 2003 11:28 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't like Landry either, but now we have far worse. Yes, on a personal basis Jean Charest is affable, and even rather likeable (I have met him while we were both waiting to be interviewed on the CBC - about different topics) but he has launched attacks on important social programmes such as the $5 a day daycares, approved a Hydro rate increase (although Hydro-Québec is profitable) and seems to be launching attacks on public sector unions.

I agree with Judy. Focusing on politicians' fumbles (like Gilles Duceppe's cheesemaker cap that resembles a shower cap) is a way of avoiding the issues at hand.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 08 September 2003 11:40 AM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The media has been quite critical historically with Charest.

The difference with the Landry case is that the private and public Charest are pretty much the same, the same way the private and public Bourassa were always the same.

The Liberals are more conservative under Charest bu they never hid that. I doubt they will implement most of their platform - they will tinker with a few programs here and there but the Liberals invented the Quiet Revolution, it has their trademark written all over it. They get elected from the right and govern from the centre, and often from the left of centre. They always gravitate back to the centre and centre-left.

The article on Babble about the daycare fight was very exaggerated - the Liberals are not about to dismantle Hydro-Quebec or the Caisse de dépôt. And the Liberals are not neo-conservative privatisers - they never were.

But the main point is the media in Quebec have tended historically to be harder on the federalist leaders. The movie simply shows the true colours of the vulgar and nasty Landry and shows that the media is becoming fairer, by also being savage to the separatist side too. And it says a lot about the soveregnitist movement that they have as leaders people like Mr. "ethnic vote" Parizeau and Mr. "temper tantrum" Landry.

Politicians' fumbles ARE an issue. They say a lot about the parties that choose and follow them.

At least with Charest, what you see is what you get. They also said that about Bourassa and Bouchard (his temper tantrums were in public on live TV for all to see). Transparency, hypocrisy, honesty, manipulation are political issues of great importance.

[ 08 September 2003: Message edited by: Mimichekele2 ]


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 September 2003 08:29 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mimichekele2:
As for Rebick's comments: the media isn't savage enough with politicians. And if the media does truly treat Landry the way the former premier accuses them of, ask yourselves why. Perhaps because the irascible, tyrannical, and vindictive Bernard Landry the public is getting to see for the first time is the one the media have been dealing with daily for 30 years.

*snicker*

I think the media is way too damn savage with politicians as it is. If they didn't jump all over every goddamn politician with the glee that only a back-seat driver can have, we'd probably get more sensitive, more qualified people instead of goons that think that running the province is all about who can make the biggest budget cuts the fastest, and who are in it for the money and what they can get out of their positions in terms of connections to highly-placed rich people instead of public service.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 08 September 2003 08:40 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm a bit surprised by what Mimi says about Québec media - I assume that he means French-language Québec media as the Montreal Gazette is the worst basher of anything remotely to do with defending the French language and culture, let alone any nationalist sentiments. And the English-language media has the opposite prejudice, so I don't see what the great problem is - especially for someone like Mimi who is fluently bilingual.

Moreover, I think the orientation Mimi is talking about is stronger among baby-boom journalists (and I know a lot of them here) than among the younger guard. Not that the young people are avid federalists - however their outlook tends to be more internationalist; their interests in human rights issues and social problems extend far beyond the borders of Québec or Canada.

[ 08 September 2003: Message edited by: lagatta ]


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625

posted 08 September 2003 10:34 PM      Profile for meades     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The difference with the Landry case is that the private and public Charest are pretty much the same, the same way the private and public Bourassa were always the same.


So? Who gives a flying fuck? Do you seriously base your voting intentions on who you'd prefer to have tea with in the morning? That's rather foolish criteria, if you ask me. Call me crazy, but I thought in the adult world, people cast ballots based on the ideas put forward in front of them, rather than based on like-ability, like some elementary student council vote.

The media is only doing itself favours by concentrating on "gaughs" and irrelevent nonsense such as this. It's not a matter of a federalist or sovereignist bias, it's a matter of a laziness bias. The people working for these media outlets are either too damn lazy, or too damn stupid to bother trying to comprehend issues, or ideological conflict, so they concentrate on the conflicts that they've been familiar with since grade 3 art class.

If anything, this marks a decline in the calibre of Québec journalists.


From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Peacefulnotion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3461

posted 08 September 2003 11:22 PM      Profile for Peacefulnotion     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The media is savage with all politicans, particularly incumbents. Whether you like him or not, the media knives are as sharpened on Ernie Eves as the knives were ever sharpened on Landry. that's the Medias job. If it isn't the Post skewering the left wing candidate, it's the Toronto Star or Now Magazine skewering the right.

That's politics and that's why the quality of people in politics is generally so low. Who needs this crap?


From: Guyville | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Judes
publisher
Babbler # 21

posted 09 September 2003 01:48 PM      Profile for Judes   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Exactly the point. This is what politics is about now but it wasn't always thus. At one time not so long ago there were actually debates on issues eg Free Trade during elections. Now there is almost no debates on issues...everything is spin and damage control. And the media plays a key role in promoting both.
I think the fact that this film opens the back door of politics to public scrutiny and has provoked a big discussion on it is a huge public service. I agree the media is savage with all the politicians and that's the problem. Unless you are a dissociated sociopath or one of those lucky people who lets everything roll off their backs without letting it in, it's almost impossible to play a leading role in big P politics today.

From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mimichekele2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3232

posted 09 September 2003 02:42 PM      Profile for Mimichekele2        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I find it surprising that Judes writes the media plays a prominent role in promoting both spin and damage control.

Quite a number of books and studies have been written about Quebec parliamentary correspondents. What emerges is a sense that the parliamentary and political reporters see their role as one of cutting through party spin, as one of opposition and criticism of manipulation.

To put it bluntly, in the words of Le Devoir's Michel Venne, that newspaper's National Assembly correspondent for many years, the Quebec media sees its role as "fucking up the game plan" ("fucker le game plan") of spin, distortion, damage control and manipulation by the politicians. Tripping up the politicians and damaging and exposing their manipulative communications strategies is seen as the essential function of journalism, perhaps the only one that allows reporters some countervailing power.

If politicians use spin, manipulative negative ads, distortions, unbelievable promises, or empty soothing rhetoric, the media's job is to be savage to them.

And yes meades, in theory I'll vote for a Bourassa (or at least have immense respect for him) before I vote for a Landry if the facts show Bourassa respects citizens and treats people right and Landry is a nasty angry politician. One day, you or I or someone you or I support might be on the receiving end of Landry's violent temper and political vindictiveness. The way he acts in the film is a good indication of the way he governs. And that behaviour is political.

[ 09 September 2003: Message edited by: Mimichekele2 ]


From: More lawyers, fewer bricks! | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 09 September 2003 03:15 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not so sure I want sensitive politicians who are going to run to their rooms crying because they got called nasty names in the press.
From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 09 September 2003 03:47 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm not so sure I want sensitive politicians who are going to run to their rooms crying because they got called nasty names in the press.

I think 'Sensitive' might be nice. I doubt the two go together.


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
spindoctor
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 958

posted 13 September 2003 01:49 AM      Profile for spindoctor   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree, the press aren't nearly critical enough in Canada. They're basically passive, often poorly educated and when they do get their shorts in a knot, it's generally about frivoulous stuff.....

Ink-stained airheads asking wretched questions

Check out Joanna Schneller's column about the shoddy work of entertainment journalists....


From: Kingston, Jamaica.....oh alright....Kingston, Ontario | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca